A very literal
translation of the 2nd pāda, bhāvenāstu parigrahaḥ, as I read
it, is “Let there be laying hold on all sides by being” or
“Let there be dominion by reality.”

An equally literal
translation would be “Let there be assistance/acceptance/embracing
by real feeling”; hence “But of what
use is courtesy by itself? let it [courtesy] be assisted by the
heart's feelings” (EBC); “What is the good of courtesy only?
Accept them [the women] with genuine feeling (EHJ); “Of what good
is just gallantry? Embrace them [the women] with feeling that's true
(PO).”

The ostensible meaning
of today's verse, then, is Udāyin's exhortation that the prince,
when he uses tact and delicacy to win the women over and make love to
them, should really really feel the love and should really mean it.
In that case, the objects (or sensual pleasures) that are hard to
gain are the women in the park (or the pleasures those women
promise), and Udāyin is telling the prince not to treat with disdain
the women (or the pleasures they promise), as objects.

The contrary way to
read today's verse is, again, as an unknowing expression of the
Buddha's teaching. In that case the first half of the verse is a
negation of idealism in the spirit of “You can't make on omelette
without cracking a few eggs.” And the second half of the verse is a
reminder that the inhibition of end-gaining impulses and desires is
ultimately all for the purpose of gaining real ends and realizing
real desires, so we should not think light of the gaining of objects.

A Chinese Zen master
who lived on a mountain called (in Japanese) I-san said that he had
lived on the mountain for 30 years eating Isan meals and shitting
Isan shit but never studying Isan Zen. In today's verse as I read it,
objects that are hard to gain correspond to the eating of Isan meals
and the shitting of Isan shit, and tact and delicacy corresponds to
the studying of Isan Zen.

To put it another way,
on the basis of experience on Marjory Barlow's Alexander teaching
table, tact and delicacy describe the subtle thinking and
imperceptibly delicate movement (“inhibition and direction” in
the jargon) that is done preparatory to moving a leg; and gaining an
object that is hard to gain describes the actual movement of a leg,
with minimal disturbance to the head, neck and back.

Working on the self as Marjory taught it is not only a matter of inhibition and direction.
There has to be a stimulus to move followed sooner or preferably
later by an actual movement, a real decision to get on and move, as
manifested by a movement. As manifested, in other words, by the gaining of a real end. As Marjory once pointedly said to me after
a lesson, “It has to be real.”

In a footnote to his
translation, EHJ admits “I am doubtful of the correctness of the
translation of the first line, though all the translators understand
it so.... I should prefer to read the line as a single sentence,
'Just try accepting them with a feeling that does not go beyond
courtesy'. But this use of kiṁ vā seems to have no analogies
elsewhere and I therefore defer to my predecessors in my rendering.”

PO adds in his own
endnote to today's verse that “the Sanskrit is quite unclear.”

To those who don't
understand Aśvaghoṣa's pervasive use of irony, his Sanskrit may
seem to be unclear; I would say that Aśvaghoṣa's Sanskrit is not
at all unclear but is very deliberately ambiguous.

For hundreds of years
in the ancient monasteries of Bihar the ostensible and hidden layers
of meaning of Aśvaghoṣa's words would have been reflected on and dug out, as above, as a
matter of course. But for many hundreds of years since then much of
the real meaning of Aśvaghoṣa's words has remained buried – and
buried, I suspect, not only figuratively.

As intolerant
Islaamists approached those ancient Indian monasteries intent on
destruction, how could there have been nobody with the wisdom to
bury a manuscript of Buddhacarita out of harm's way?

Just imagine if a
quarter of Shakespeare's output were suspected of having been buried
somewhere to protect it from continental invaders. Stratford-on-Avon
would be riddled with archaeologists' trenches.

Come on, India. Wake up
and get digging!

VOCABULARY

kim:
(interrogative particle, used with instrumental to express negative
exhortation)

viṣayān
(acc. pl.): m. an object of sense; anything perceptible by the senses
, any object of affection or concern or attention , any special
worldly object or aim or matter or business , (pl.) sensual
enjoyments , sensuality